SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • 1
    Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62: 10-29.
  • 2
    Evans WP. Breast cancer screening: Successes and challenges. CA Cancer J Clin. 2012; 62: 5-9.
  • 3
    Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, et al; American Cancer Society Breast Cancer Advisory Group. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007; 57: 75-89.
  • 4
    Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L; US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 727-737, W237-W742.
  • 5
    Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, et al. Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010; 7: 18-27.
  • 6
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC, et al. Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 8469-8476.
  • 7
    Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD, et al. Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology. 2007; 244: 381-388.
  • 8
    Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA. 2004; 292: 1317-1325.
  • 9
    Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, et al; ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Combined screening with ultrasound and mammography vs mammography alone in women at elevated risk of breast cancer. JAMA. 2008; 299: 2151-2163.
  • 10
    Berg WA, Zhang Z, Lehrer D, et al; ACRIN 6666 Investigators. Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk. JAMA. 2012; 307: 1394-1404.
  • 11
    Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, Glassman JR, Morris EA, Dershaw DD. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1998; 171: 35-40.
  • 12
    Liberman L, Menell JH. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Radiol Clin North Am. 2002; 40: 409-430.
  • 13
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB, et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2007; 370: 485-492.
  • 14
    Menell JH, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, Abramson AF, Brogi E, Liberman L. Determination of the presence and extent of pure ductal carcinoma in situ by mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Breast J. 2005; 11: 382-390.
  • 15
    Bassett L, Winchester DP, Caplan RB, et al. Stereotactic core-needle biopsy of the breast: a report of the Joint Task Force of the American College of Radiology, American College of Surgeons, and College of American Pathologists. CA Cancer J Clin. 1997; 47: 171-190.
  • 16
    Liberman L, Holland AE, Marjan D, et al. Underestimation of atypical ductal hyperplasia at MRI-guided 9-gauge vacuum-assisted breast biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 188: 684-690.
  • 17
    Liberman L, Sama M, Susnik B, et al. Lobular carcinoma in situ at percutaneous breast biopsy: surgical biopsy findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999; 173: 291-299.
  • 18
    Berg JC, Visscher DW, Vierkant RA, et al. Breast cancer risk in women with radial scars in benign breast biopsies. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008; 108: 167-174.
  • 19
    Kim MJ, Kim SI, Youk JH, et al. The diagnosis of non-malignant papillary lesions of the breast: comparison of ultrasound-guided automated gun biopsy and vacuum-assisted removal. Clin Radiol. 2011; 66: 530-535.
  • 20
    Brennan ME, Turner RM, Ciatto S, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ at core-needle biopsy: meta-analysis of underestimation and predictors of invasive breast cancer. Radiology. 2011; 260: 119-128.
  • 21
    Houssami N, Ciatto S, Macaskill P, et al. Accuracy and surgical impact of magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer staging: systematic review and meta-analysis in detection of multifocal and multicentric cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 3248-3258.
  • 22
    Boetes C, Strijk SP, Holland R, Barentsz JO, Van Der Sluis RF, Ruijs JH. False-negative MR imaging of malignant breast tumors. Eur Radiol. 1997; 7: 1231-1234.
  • 23
    Morris EA, Schwartz LH, Drotman MB, et al. Evaluation of pectoralis major muscle in patients with posterior breast tumors on breast MR images: early experience. Radiology. 2000; 214: 67-72.
  • 24
    Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 5640-5649.
  • 25
    Lehman CD, Blume JD, Thickman D, et al. Added cancer yield of MRI in screening the contralateral breast of women recently diagnosed with breast cancer: results from the International Breast Magnetic Resonance Consortium (IBMC) trial. J Surg Oncol. 2005; 92: 9-15.
  • 26
    Yuan Y, Chen XS, Liu SY, Shen KW. Accuracy of MRI in prediction of pathologic complete remission in breast cancer after preoperative therapy: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 195: 260-268.
  • 27
    Dershaw DD. Mammography in patients with breast cancer treated by breast conservation (lumpectomy with or without radiation). AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995; 164: 309-316.
  • 28
    Brennan S, Liberman L, Dershaw DD, Morris E. Breast MRI screening of women with a personal history of breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 195: 510-516.
  • 29
    Gur D, Abrams GS, Chough DM, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: observer performance study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 193: 586-591.
  • 30
    Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, Sumkin JH, Zuley ML, Gur D. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment: a subjective side-by-side review. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 195: W172-W176.
  • 31
    Diekmann F, Freyer M, Diekmann S, et al. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced digital mammography. Eur J Radiol. 2011; 78: 112-121.
  • 32
    Dromain C, Thibault F, Muller S, et al. Dual-energy contrast-enhanced digital mammography: initial clinical results. Eur Radiol. 2011; 21: 565-574.
  • 33
    Bartella L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, et al. Proton MR spectroscopy with choline peak as malignancy marker improves positive predictive value for breast cancer diagnosis: preliminary study. Radiology. 2006; 239: 686-692.
  • 34
    Jagannathan NR, Kumar M, Seenu V, et al. Evaluation of total choline from in-vivo volume localized proton MR spectroscopy and its response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2001; 84: 1016-1022.
  • 35
    Meisamy S, Bolan PJ, Baker EH, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy of locally advanced breast cancer: predicting response with in vivo (1)H MR spectroscopy–a pilot study at 4 T. Radiology. 2004; 233: 424-431.
  • 36
    Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL, et al. Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002; 16: 172-178.
  • 37
    Partridge SC, Mullins CD, Kurland BF, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient values for discriminating benign and malignant breast MRI lesions: effects of lesion type and size. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010; 194: 1664-1673.
  • 38
    Ophir J, Cespedes I, Ponnekanti H, Yazdi Y, Li X. Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging the elasticity of biological tissues. Ultrason Imaging. 1991; 13: 111-134.
  • 39
    Cho N, Jang M, Lyou CY, Park JS, Choi HY, Moon WK. Distinguishing benign from malignant masses at breast US: combined US elastography and color doppler US–influence on radiologist accuracy. Radiology. 2012; 262: 80-90.
  • 40
    Pritchard KI, Julian JA, Holloway CM, et al. Prospective study of 2-[(1)(8)F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the assessment of regional nodal spread of disease in patients with breast cancer: an Ontario clinical oncology group study. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 1274-1279.
  • 41
    Groheux D, Giacchetti S, Espie M, et al. The yield of 18F-FDG PET/CT in patients with clinical stage IIA, IIB, or IIIA breast cancer: a prospective study. J Nucl Med. 2011; 52: 1526-1534.
  • 42
    Schwarz-Dose J, Untch M, Tiling R, et al. Monitoring primary systemic therapy of large and locally advanced breast cancer by using sequential positron emission tomography imaging with [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 535-541.
  • 43
    Tateishi U, Miyake M, Nagaoka T, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: prediction of pathologic response with PET/CT and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging–prospective assessment. Radiology. 2012; 263: 53-63.
  • 44
    Mankoff DA, Dunnwald LK, Gralow JR, et al. Changes in blood flow and metabolism in locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2003; 44: 1806-1814.
  • 45
    Dunnwald LK, Gralow JR, Ellis GK, et al. Tumor metabolism and blood flow changes by positron emission tomography: relation to survival in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 4449-4457.
  • 46
    Morris PG, Ulaner GA, Eaton A, et al. Standardized uptake value by positron emission tomography/computed tomography as a prognostic variable in metastatic breast cancer. Cancer. 2012; doi:10.1002/cncr.27579.
  • 47
    Berg WA, Weinberg IN, Narayanan D, et al. High-resolution fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography with compression (“positron emission mammography”) is highly accurate in depicting primary breast cancer. Breast J. 2006; 12: 309-323.
  • 48
    Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2008 version 1.2, Cancer Incidence and Mortality Worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 10. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2010. globocan. iarc.fr/. Accessed February 7, 2012.
  • 49
    American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2011. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2011.
  • 50
    Godoy MC, Naidich DP. Subsolid pulmonary nodules and the spectrum of peripheral adenocarcinomas of the lung: recommended interim guidelines for assessment and management. Radiology. 2009; 253: 606-622.
  • 51
    Park CM, Goo JM, Lee HJ, Lee CH, Chun EJ, Im JG. Nodular ground-glass opacity at thin-section CT: histologic correlation and evaluation of change at follow-up. Radiographics. 2007; 27: 391-408.
  • 52
    Aoki T, Nakata H, Watanabe H, et al. Evolution of peripheral lung adenocarcinomas: CT findings correlated with histology and tumor doubling time. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000; 174: 763-768.
  • 53
    Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, editors. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2008, National Cancer Institute: Bethesda, MD. seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2008/, based on November 2010 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER Web site, 2011. Accessed February 7, 2012.
  • 54
    Rosado-de-Christenson ML, Templeton PA, Moran CA. Bronchogenic carcinoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 1994; 14: 429-446; quiz 447-428.
  • 55
    Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 395-409.
  • 56
    Aberle DR, Berg CD, Black WC, et al. The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology. 2011; 258: 243-253.
  • 57
    Goulart BH, Bensink ME, Mummy DG, Ramsey SD. Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography: costs, national expenditures, and cost-effectiveness. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012; 10: 267-275.
  • 58
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: non-small cell lung cancer. Version 3.2012. nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp. Accessed September 6, 2012.
  • 59
    Lardinois D, Weder W, Hany TF, Kamel EM, Korom S, Seifert B, von Schulthess GK, Steinert HC. Staging of non-small-cell lung cancer with integrated positron-emission tomography and computed tomography. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348: 2500-2507.
  • 60
    Ravenel JG, Mohammed TL, Movsas B, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria(R) noninvasive clinical staging of bronchogenic carcinoma. J Thorac Imaging. 2010; 25: W107-W111.
  • 61
    Ginsberg MS, Grewal RK, Heelan RT. Lung cancer. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007; 45: 21-43.
  • 62
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Non-Small cell lung cancer. Version 3.2012 nccn.org. Accessed April 27, 2012.
  • 63
    Pöttgen C, Levegrün S, Theegarten D, et al. Value of 18F-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer for prediction of pathologic response and times to relapse after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2006; 12: 97-106.
  • 64
    Weber WA, Petersen V, Schmidt B, et al. Positron emission tomography in non-small-cell lung cancer: prediction of response to chemotherapy by quantitative assessment of glucose use. J Clin Oncol. 2003; 21: 2651-2657.
  • 65
    Benz MR, Herrmann K, Walter F, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/CT for monitoring treatment responses to the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib. J Nucl Med. 2011; 52: 1684-1689.
  • 66
    Mileshkin L, Hicks RJ, Hughes BG, et al. Changes in 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose and 18F-fluorodeoxythymidine positron emission tomography imaging in patients with non-small cell lung cancer treated with erlotinib. Clin Cancer Res. 2011; 17: 3304-3315.
  • 67
    Pua BB, Thornton RH, Solomon SB. Radiofrequency ablation: treatment of primary lung cancer. Semin Roentgenol. 2011; 46: 224-229.
  • 68
    Bojarski JD, Dupuy DE, Mayo-Smith WW. CT imaging findings of pulmonary neoplasms after treatment with radiofrequency ablation: results in 32 tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005; 185: 466-471.
  • 69
    Kang S, Luo R, Liao W, Wu H, Zhang X, Meng Y. Single group study to evaluate the feasibility and complications of radiofrequency ablation and usefulness of post treatment position emission tomography in lung tumours. World J Surg Oncol. 2004; 2: 30.
  • 70
    Singnurkar A, Solomon SB, Gönen M, Larson SM, Schöder H. 18F-FDG PET/CT for the prediction and detection of local recurrence after radiofrequency ablation of malignant lung lesions. J Nucl Med. 2010; 51: 1833-1840.
  • 71
    Smith S, Gillams A. Imaging appearances following thermal ablation. Clin Radiol. 2008; 63: 1-11.
  • 72
    Shariat SF, Kattan MW, Vickers AJ, Karakiewicz PI, Scardino PT. Critical review of prostate cancer predictive tools. Future Oncol. 2009; 5: 1555-1584.
  • 73
    Ahmed HU, Akin O, Coleman JA, et al; Transatlantic Consensus Group on Active Surveillance and Focal Therapy for Prostate Cancer. Transatlantic Consensus Group on active surveillance and focal therapy for prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012; 109: 1636-1647.
  • 74
    Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189: 323-328.
  • 75
    Kim CK, Park BK, Lee HM, Kwon GY. Value of diffusion-weighted imaging for the prediction of prostate cancer location at 3T using a phased-array coil: preliminary results. Invest Radiol. 2007; 42: 842-847.
  • 76
    Miao H, Fukatsu H, Ishigaki T. Prostate cancer detection with 3-T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted and T2-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2007; 61: 297-302.
  • 77
    Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, et al. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197: 1382-1390.
  • 78
    Turkbey B, Shah VP, Pang Y, et al. Is apparent diffusion coefficient associated with clinical risk scores for prostate cancers that are visible on 3-T MR images? Radiology. 2011; 258: 488-495.
  • 79
    Vargas HA, Akin O, Franiel T, et al. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3 T for prostate cancer: tumor detection and assessment of aggressiveness. Radiology. 2011; 259: 775-784.
  • 80
    Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999; 10: 223-232.
  • 81
    Akin O, Gultekin DH, Vargas HA, et al. Incremental value of diffusion weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in the detection of locally recurrent prostate cancer after radiation treatment: preliminary results. Eur Radiol. 2011; 21: 1970-1978.
  • 82
    Alonzi R, Padhani AR, Allen C. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in prostate cancer. Eur J Radiol. 2007; 63: 335-350.
  • 83
    Bloch BN, Furman-Haran E, Helbich TH, et al. Prostate cancer: accurate determination of extracapsular extension with high-spatial-resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted MR imaging–initial results. Radiology. 2007; 245: 176-185.
  • 84
    Futterer JJ, Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, et al. Staging prostate cancer with dynamic contrast-enhanced endorectal MR imaging prior to radical prostatectomy: experienced versus less experienced readers. Radiology. 2005; 237: 541-549.
  • 85
    Ocak I, Bernardo M, Metzger G, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer at 3 T: a study of pharmacokinetic parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007; 189: 849.
  • 86
    Sciarra A, Panebianco V, Ciccariello M, et al. Value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging for detecting prostate cancer foci in men with prior negative biopsy. Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16: 1875-1883.
  • 87
    Bonekamp D, Jacobs MA, El-Khouli R, Stoianovici D, Macura KJ. Advancements in MR imaging of the prostate: from diagnosis to interventions. Radiographics. 2011; 31: 677-703.
  • 88
    Mazaheri Y, Shukla-Dave A, Muellner A, Hricak H. MRI of the prostate: clinical relevance and emerging applications. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011; 33: 258-274.
  • 89
    Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Moskowitz C, et al. Detection of prostate cancer with MR spectroscopic imaging: an expanded paradigm incorporating polyamines. Radiology. 2007; 245: 499-506.
  • 90
    Weinreb JC, Blume JD, Coakley FV, et al. Prostate cancer: sextant localization at MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging before prostatectomy–results of ACRIN prospective multi-institutional clinicopathologic study. Radiology. 2009; 251: 122-133.
  • 91
    Shukla-Dave A, Hricak H, Akin O, et al. Preoperative nomograms incorporating magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy for prediction of insignificant prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2012; 109: 1315-1322.
  • 92
    Zakian KL, Sircar K, Hricak H, et al. Correlation of proton MR spectroscopic imaging with gleason score based on step-section pathologic analysis after radical prostatectomy. Radiology. 2005; 234: 804-814.
  • 93
    Bouchelouche K, Turkbey B, Choyke P, Capala J. Imaging prostate cancer: an update on positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Curr Urol Rep. 2010; 11: 180-190.
  • 94
    Fox JJ, Morris MJ, Larson SM, Schöder H, Scher HI. Developing imaging strategies for castration resistant prostate cancer. Acta Oncol. 2011; 50( suppl 1): 39-48.
  • 95
    Jadvar H. Molecular imaging of prostate cancer with 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET. Nat Rev Urol. 2009; 6: 317-323.
  • 96
    Jadvar H. Prostate cancer: PET with 18F-FDG, 18F- or 11C-acetate, and 18F- or 11C-choline. J Nucl Med. 2011; 52: 81-89.
  • 97
    Meirelles GS, Schöder H, Ravizzini GC, et al. Prognostic value of baseline [18F] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and 99mTc-MDP bone scan in progressing metastatic prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010; 16: 6093-6099.
  • 98
    Murphy RC, Kawashima A, Peller PJ. The utility of 11C-choline PET/CT for imaging prostate cancer: a pictorial guide. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196: 1390-1398.
  • 99
    Castellucci P, Fuccio C, Rubello D, et al. Is there a role for 11C-choline PET/CT in the early detection of metastatic disease in surgically treated prostate cancer patients with a mild PSA increase < 1.5 ng/ml? Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2011; 38: 55-63.
  • 100
    Schiavina R, Scattoni V, Castellucci P, et al. 11C-choline positron emission tomography/computerized tomography for preoperative lymph-node staging in intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer: comparison with clinical staging nomograms. Eur Urol. 2008; 54: 392-401.
  • 101
    Jana S, Blaufox MD. Nuclear medicine studies of the prostate, testes, and bladder. Semin Nucl Med. 2006; 36: 51-72.
  • 102
    Soloviev D, Fini A, Chierichetti F, Al-Nahhas A, Rubello D. PET imaging with 11C-acetate in prostate cancer: a biochemical, radiochemical and clinical perspective. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008; 35: 942-949.
  • 103
    Vees H, Buchegger F, Albrecht S, et al. 18F-choline and/or 11C-acetate positron emission tomography: detection of residual or progressive subclinical disease at very low prostate-specific antigen values (< 1 ng/mL) after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2007; 99: 1415-1420.
  • 104
    Dehdashti F, Picus J, Michalski JM, et al. Positron tomographic assessment of androgen receptors in prostatic carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2005; 32: 344-350.
  • 105
    Larson SM, Morris M, Gunther I, et al. Tumor localization of 16beta-18F-fluoro-5alpha-dihydrotestosterone versus 18F-FDG in patients with progressive, metastatic prostate cancer. J Nucl Med. 2004; 45: 366-373.
  • 106
    Schuster DM, Votaw JR, Nieh PT, et al. Initial experience with the radiotracer anti-1-amino-3–18F-fluorocyclobutane-1-carboxylic acid with PET/CT in prostate carcinoma. J Nucl Med. 2007; 48: 56-63.
  • 107
    Tóth G, Lengyel Z, Balkay L, Salah MA, Trón L, Tóth C. Detection of prostate cancer with 11C-methionine positron emission tomography. J Urol. 2005; 173: 66-69.
  • 108
    Cirillo S, Petracchini M, Della Monica P, et al. Value of endorectal MRI and MRS in patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels and previous negative biopsies to localize peripheral zone tumours. Clin Radiol. 2008; 63: 871-879.
  • 109
    Kitajima K, Kaji Y, Fukabori Y, Yoshida K, Suganuma N, Sugimura K. Prostate cancer detection with 3 T MRI: comparison of diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in combination with T2-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 31: 625-631.
  • 110
    Villeirs GM, De Meerleer GO, De Visschere PJ, Fonteyne VH, Verbaeys AC, Oosterlinck W. Combined magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy in the assessment of high grade prostate carcinoma in patients with elevated PSA: a single-institution experience of 356 patients. Eur J Radiol. 2011; 77: 340-345.
  • 111
    Pinto PA, Chung PH, Rastinehad AR, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion guided prostate biopsy improves cancer detection following transrectal ultrasound biopsy and correlates with multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol. 2011; 186: 1281-1285.
  • 112
    Wang L, Hricak H, Kattan MW, Chen HN, Scardino PT, Kuroiwa K. Prediction of organ-confined prostate cancer: incremental value of MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging to staging nomograms. Radiology. 2006; 238: 597-603.
  • 113
    Cooperberg MR, Lubeck DP, Meng MV, Mehta SS, Carroll PR. The changing face of low-risk prostate cancer: trends in clinical presentation and primary management. J Clin Oncol. 2004; 22: 2141-2149.
  • 114
    Harnden P, Naylor B, Shelley MD, Clements H, Coles B, Mason MD. The clinical management of patients with a small volume of prostatic cancer on biopsy: what are the risks of progression? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer. 2008; 112: 971-981.
  • 115
    Cooperberg MR, Carroll PR, Klotz L. Active surveillance for prostate cancer: progress and promise. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 3669-3676.
  • 116
    Keegan KA, Dall'era MA, Durbin-Johnson B, Evans CP. Active surveillance for prostate cancer compared with immediate treatment: An economic analysis. Cancer. 2011; doi:10.1002/cncr.26688.
  • 117
    Lindner U, Lawrentschuk N, Schatloff O, Trachtenberg J, Lindner A. Evolution from active surveillance to focal therapy in the management of prostate cancer. Future Oncol. 2011; 7: 775-787.
  • 118
    Ahmed HU, Pendse D, Illing R, Allen C, van der Meulen JH, Emberton M. Will focal therapy become a standard of care for men with localized prostate cancer? Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2007; 4: 632-642.
  • 119
    Rosenkrantz AB, Scionti SM, Mendrinos S, Taneja SS. Role of MRI in minimally invasive focal ablative therapy for prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197: W90-W96.
  • 120
    American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures 2012. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2012.
  • 121
    Nusko G, Mansmann U, Partzsch U, et al. Invasive carcinoma in colorectal adenomas: multivariate analysis of patient and adenoma characteristics. Endoscopy. 1997; 29: 626-631.
  • 122
    McHugh M, Osei-Anto A, Klabunde CN, Galen BA. Adoption of CT colonography by US hospitals. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011; 8: 169-174.
  • 123
    House MG, Ito H, Gönen M, et al. Survival after hepatic resection for metastatic colorectal cancer: trends in outcomes for 1,600 patients during two decades at a single institution. J Am Coll Surg. 2010; 210: 744-755.
  • 124
    Choi JY, Choi JS, Kim MJ, et al. Detection of hepatic hypovascular metastases: 3D gradient echo MRI using a hepatobiliary contrast agent. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 31: 571-578.
  • 125
    MERCURY study group. Diagnostic accuracy of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in predicting curative resection of rectal cancer: prospective observational study. BMJ. 2006; 333: 779.
  • 126
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Cancer screening - United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2012; 61: 41-45.
  • 127
    Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, Mandelblatt J. Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002; 137: 96-104.
  • 128
    Guittet L, Bouvier V, Mariotte N, et al. Comparison of a guaiac based and an immunochemical faecal occult blood test in screening for colorectal cancer in a general average risk population. Gut. 2007; 56: 210-214.
  • 129
    Smith A, Young GP, Cole SR, Bampton P. Comparison of a brush-sampling fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin with a sensitive guaiac-based fecal occult blood test in detection of colorectal neoplasia. Cancer. 2006; 107: 2152-2159.
  • 130
    Itzkowitz S, Brand R, Jandorf L, et al. A simplified, noninvasive stool DNA test for colorectal cancer detection. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008; 103: 2862-2870.
    Direct Link:
  • 131
    Winawer SJ, Stewart ET, Zauber AG, et al. A comparison of colonoscopy and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance after polypectomy. National Polyp Study Work Group. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342: 1766-1772.
  • 132
    Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Rex DK. Performance improvements of imaging-based screening tests. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2010; 24: 493-507.
  • 133
    Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Meiners RJ, et al. Colorectal and extracolonic cancers detected at screening CT colonography in 10,286 asymptomatic adults. Radiology. 2010; 255: 83-88.
  • 134
    Hassan C, Pickhardt PJ, Laghi A, et al. Computed tomographic colonography to screen for colorectal cancer, extracolonic cancer, and aortic aneurysm: model simulation with cost-effectiveness analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2008; 168: 696-705.
  • 135
    Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Hanson ME, Hinshaw JL. CT colonography: performance and program outcome measures in an older screening population. Radiology. 2010; 254: 493-500.
  • 136
    Toma J, Paszat LF, Gunraj N, Rabeneck L. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancer after barium enema and their risk factors: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008; 103: 3142-3148.
    Direct Link:
  • 137
    Pickhardt PJ, Hassan C, Halligan S, Marmo R. Colorectal cancer: CT colonography and colonoscopy for detection–systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology. 2011; 259: 393-405.
  • 138
    Nelson H, Petrelli N, Carlin A, et al; National Cancer Institute Expert Panel. Guidelines 2000 for colon and rectal cancer surgery. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93: 583-596.
  • 139
    Filippone A, Ambrosini R, Fuschi M, Marinelli T, Genovesi D, Bonomo L. Preoperative T and N staging of colorectal cancer: accuracy of contrast-enhanced multi-detector row CT colonography–initial experience. Radiology. 2004; 231: 83-90.
  • 140
    Lawrence EM, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Robbins JB. Colorectal polyps: stand-alone performance of computer-aided detection in a large asymptomatic screening population. Radiology. 2010; 256: 791-798.
  • 141
    Kuehle CA, Langhorst J, Ladd SC, et al. Magnetic resonance colonography without bowel cleansing: a prospective cross sectional study in a screening population. Gut. 2007; 56: 1079-1085.
  • 142
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. Colon cancer. Version 3. 2012. nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#site. Accessed April 23, 2012.
  • 143
    Khalil HI, Patterson SA, Panicek DM. Hepatic lesions deemed too small to characterize at CT: prevalence and importance in women with breast cancer. Radiology. 2005; 235: 872-878.
  • 144
    Goodwin MD, Dobson JE, Sirlin CB, Lim BG, Stella DL. Diagnostic challenges and pitfalls in MR imaging with hepatocyte-specific contrast agents. Radiographics. 2011; 31: 1547-1568.
  • 145
    Kong G, Jackson C, Koh DM, et al. The use of 18F-FDG PET/CT in colorectal liver metastases–comparison with CT and liver MRI. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2008; 35: 1323-1329.
  • 146
    Correas JM, Low G, Needleman L, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound in the detection of liver metastases: a prospective multi-centre dose testing study using a perfluorobutane microbubble contrast agent (NC100100). Eur Radiol. 2011; 21: 1739-1746.
  • 147
    Phang PT, Gollub MJ, Loh BD, et al. Accuracy of endorectal ultrasound for measurement of the closest predicted radial mesorectal margin for rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum. 2012; 55: 59-64.
  • 148
    Lahaye MJ, Engelen SM, Nelemans PJ, et al. Imaging for predicting the risk factors–the circumferential resection margin and nodal disease–of local recurrence in rectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2005; 26: 259-268.
  • 149
    Lambregts DM, Beets GL, Maas M, et al. Accuracy of gadofosveset-enhanced MRI for nodal staging and restaging in rectal cancer. Ann Surg. 2011; 253: 539-545.
  • 150
    Forner A, Ayuso C, Varela M, et al. Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer. 2009; 115: 616-623.
  • 151
    Floriani I, Torri V, Rulli E, et al. Performance of imaging modalities in diagnosis of liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 31: 19-31.
  • 152
    Bruix J, Sherman M, Llovet JM, et al; EASL Panel of Experts on HCC. Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver. J Hepatol. 2001; 35: 421-430.
  • 153
    Kuehl H, Antoch G, Stergar H, et al. Comparison of FDG-PET, PET/CT and MRI for follow-up of colorectal liver metastases treated with radiofrequency ablation: initial results. Eur J Radiol. 2008; 67: 362-371.
  • 154
    Maretto I, Pomerri F, Pucciarelli S, et al. The potential of restaging in the prediction of pathologic response after preoperative chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007; 14: 455-461.
  • 155
    Suppiah A, Maslekar S, Alabi A, Hartley JE, Monson JR. Transanal endoscopic microsurgery in early rectal cancer: time for a trial? Colorectal Dis. 2008; 10: 314-327;.
  • 156
    Mehta VK, Cho C, Ford JM, et al. Phase II trial of preoperative 3D conformal radiotherapy, protracted venous infusion 5-fluorouracil, and weekly CPT-11, followed by surgery for ultrasound-staged T3 rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2003; 55: 132-137.
  • 157
    Kalff V, Ware R, Heriot A, Chao M, Drummond E, Hicks RJ. Radiation changes do not interfere with postchemoradiation restaging of patients with rectal cancer by FDG PET/CT before curative surgical therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2009; 74: 60-66.
  • 158
    Barbaro B, Fiorucci C, Tebala C, et al. Locally advanced rectal cancer: MR imaging in prediction of response after preoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Radiology. 2009; 250: 730-739.
  • 159
    Yeo SG, Kim DY, Park JW, et al. Tumor volume reduction rate after preoperative chemoradiotherapy as a prognostic factor in locally advanced rectal cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2012; 82: e193-e199.
  • 160
    Kim SH, Lee JY, Lee JM, Han JK, Choi BI. Apparent diffusion coefficient for evaluating tumour response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Eur Radiol. 2011; 21: 987-995.
  • 161
    Gollub MJ, Gultekin DH, Akin O, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced-MRI for the detection of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer. Eur Radiol. 2012; 22: 821-831.
  • 162
    Park IJ, Kim HC, Yu CS, et al. Efficacy of PET/CT in the accurate evaluation of primary colorectal carcinoma. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2006; 32: 941-947.
  • 163
    Huebner RH, Park KC, Shepherd JE, et al. A meta-analysis of the literature for whole-body FDG PET detection of recurrent colorectal cancer. J Nucl Med. 2000; 41: 1177-1189.
  • 164
    Meta J, Seltzer M, Schiepers C, et al. Impact of 18F-FDG PET on managing patients with colorectal cancer: the referring physician's perspective. J Nucl Med. 2001; 42: 586-590.
  • 165
    Scott AM, Gunawardana DH, Kelley B, et al. PET changes management and improves prognostic stratification in patients with recurrent colorectal cancer: results of a multicenter prospective study. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49: 1451-1457.
  • 166
    Lin M, Wong K, Ng WL, Shon IH, Morgan M. Positron emission tomography and colorectal cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011; 77: 30-47.
  • 167
    Dietz DW, Dehdashti F, Grigsby PW, et al. Tumor hypoxia detected by positron emission tomography with 60Cu-ATSM as a predictor of response and survival in patients undergoing Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for rectal carcinoma: a pilot study. Dis Colon Rectum. 2008; 51: 1641-1648.
  • 168
    Padhani AR, Koh DM, Collins DJ. Whole-body diffusion-weighted MR imaging in cancer: current status and research directions. Radiology. 2011; 261: 700-718.
  • 169
    Lambregts DM, Maas M, Cappendijk VC, et al. Whole-body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: current evidence in oncology and potential role in colorectal cancer staging. Eur J Cancer. 2011; 47: 2107-2116.
  • 170
    Desch CE, Benson AB 3rd, Somerfield MR, et al; American Society of Clinical Oncology. Colorectal cancer surveillance: 2005 update of an American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 8512-8519.
  • 171
    Figueredo A, Rumble RB, Maroun J, et al; Gastrointestinal Cancer Disease Site Group of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-based Care. Follow-up of patients with curatively resected colorectal cancer: a practice guideline. BMC Cancer. 2003; 3: 26.
  • 172
    Jeffery M, Hickey BE, Hider PN. Follow-up strategies for patients treated for non-metastatic colorectal cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;( 1): CD002200.
  • 173
    Renehan AG, Egger M, Saunders MP, O'Dwyer ST. Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ. 2002; 324: 813.
  • 174
    Rex DK, Kahi CJ, Levin B, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after cancer resection: a consensus update by the American Cancer Society and US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006; 56: 160-167.
  • 175
    Kim HJ, Park SH, Pickhardt PJ, et al. CT colonography for combined colonic and extracolonic surveillance after curative resection of colorectal cancer. Radiology. 2010; 257: 697-704.
  • 176
    Zalis ME, Barish MA, Choi JR, et al; Working Group on Virtual Colonoscopy. CT colonography reporting and data system: a consensus proposal. Radiology. 2005; 236: 3-9.
  • 177
    Anderson JR, Armitage JO, Weisenburger DD. Epidemiology of the non-Hodgkin's lymphomas: distributions of the major subtypes differ by geographic locations. Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Classification Project. Ann Oncol. 1998; 9: 717-720.
  • 178
    Schoder H, Moskowitz C. PET imaging for response assessment in lymphoma: potential and limitations. Radiol Clin North Am. 2008; 46: 225-241.
  • 179
    Flowers CR, Armitage JO. A decade of progress in lymphoma: advances and continuing challenges. Clin Lymphoma Myeloma Leuk. 2010; 10: 414-423.
  • 180
    Cheson BD, Pfistner B, Juweid ME, et al. Revised response criteria for malignant lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 579-586.
  • 181
    Noy A, Schöder H, Gönen M, et al. The majority of transformed lymphomas have high standardized uptake values (SUVs) on positron emission tomography (PET) scanning similar to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Ann Oncol. 2009; 20: 508-512.
  • 182
    Schöder H, Noy A, Gönen M, et al. Intensity of 18fluorodeoxyglucose uptake in positron emission tomography distinguishes between indolent and aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 4643-4651.
  • 183
    Hutchings M, Loft A, Hansen M, Ralfkiaer E, Specht L. Different histopathological subtypes of Hodgkin lymphoma show significantly different levels of FDG uptake. Hematol Oncol. 2006; 24: 146-150.
  • 184
    Elstrom R, Guan L, Baker G, et al. Utility of FDG-PET scanning in lymphoma by WHO classification. Blood. 2003; 101: 3875-3876.
  • 185
    Karam M, Novak L, Cyriac J, Ali A, Nazeer T, Nugent F. Role of fluorine-18 fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in the evaluation and follow-up of patients with low-grade lymphomas. Cancer. 2006; 107: 175-183.
  • 186
    Wirth A, Foo M, Seymour JF, Macmanus MP, Hicks RJ. Impact of [18f] fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography on staging and management of early-stage follicular non-hodgkin lymphoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2008; 71: 213-219.
  • 187
    Weiler-Sagie M, Bushelev O, Epelbaum R, et al. (18)F-FDG avidity in lymphoma readdressed: a study of 766 patients. J Nucl Med. 2010; 51: 25-30.
  • 188
    Meignan M, Gallamini A, Haioun C. Report on the First International Workshop on Interim-PET-Scan in Lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2009; 50: 1257-1260.
  • 189
    Buchmann I, Reinhardt M, Elsner K, et al. 2-(fluorine-18)fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography in the detection and staging of malignant lymphoma. A bicenter trial. Cancer. 2001; 91: 889-899.
  • 190
    Weihrauch MR, Re D, Bischoff S, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for initial staging of patients with Hodgkin's disease. Ann Hematol. 2002; 81: 20-25.
  • 191
    Elstrom RL, Leonard JP, Coleman M, Brown RK. Combined PET and low-dose, noncontrast CT scanning obviates the need for additional diagnostic contrast-enhanced CT scans in patients undergoing staging or restaging for lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2008; 19: 1770-1773.
  • 192
    Schaefer NG, Hany TF, Taverna C, et al. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Hodgkin disease: coregistered FDG PET and CT at staging and restaging–do we need contrast-enhanced CT? Radiology. 2004; 232: 823-829.
  • 193
    Schaefer NG, Strobel K, Taverna C, Hany TF. Bone involvement in patients with lymphoma: the role of FDG-PET/CT. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2007; 34: 60-67.
  • 194
    Naumann R, Beuthien-Baumann B, Reiss A, et al. Substantial impact of FDG PET imaging on the therapy decision in patients with early-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. Br J Cancer. 2004; 90: 620-625.
  • 195
    Schoder H, Meta J, Yap C, et al. Effect of whole-body (18)F-FDG PET imaging on clinical staging and management of patients with malignant lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2001; 42: 1139-1143.
  • 196
    Rigacci L, Vitolo U, Nassi L, et al. Positron emission tomography in the staging of patients with Hodgkin's lymphoma. A prospective multicentric study by the Intergruppo Italiano Linfomi. Ann Hematol. 2007; 86: 897-903.
  • 197
    Terezakis SA, Hunt MA, Kowalski A, et al. [(18)F]FDG-positron emission tomography coregistration with computed tomography scans for radiation treatment planning of lymphoma and hematologic malignancies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011; 81: 615-622.
  • 198
    Picardi M, Soricelli A, Grimaldi F, Nicolai E, Gallamini A, Pane F. Fused FDG-PET/contrast-enhanced CT detects occult subdiaphragmatic involvement of Hodgkin's lymphoma thereby identifying patients requiring six cycles of anthracycline-containing chemotherapy and consolidation radiation of spleen. Ann Oncol. 2011; 22: 671-680.
  • 199
    Rini JN, Leonidas JC, Tomas MB, Palestro CJ. 18F-FDG PET versus CT for evaluating the spleen during initial staging of lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2003; 44: 1072-1074.
  • 200
    Kabickova E, Sumerauer D, Cumlivska E, et al. Comparison of 18F-FDG-PET and standard procedures for the pretreatment staging of children and adolescents with Hodgkin's disease. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2006; 33: 1025-1031.
  • 201
    Moulin-Romsee G, Hindie E, Cuenca X, et al. (18)F-FDG PET/CT bone/bone marrow findings in Hodgkin's lymphoma may circumvent the use of bone marrow trephine biopsy at diagnosis staging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010; 37: 1095-1105.
  • 202
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Whole-body positron emission tomography using 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose for posttreatment evaluation in Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma has higher diagnostic and prognostic value than classical computed tomography scan imaging. Blood. 1999; 94: 429-433.
  • 203
    Naumann R, Vaic A, Beuthien-Baumann B, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography in the evaluation of post-treatment residual mass in patients with Hodgkin's disease and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. Br J Haematol. 2001; 115: 793-800.
  • 204
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Prognostic value of positron emission tomography (PET) with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) after first-line chemotherapy in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: is [18F]FDG-PET a valid alternative to conventional diagnostic methods? J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19: 414-419.
  • 205
    Terasawa T, Nihashi T, Hotta T, Nagai H. 18F-FDG PET for posttherapy assessment of Hodgkin's disease and aggressive Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a systematic review. J Nucl Med. 2008; 49: 13-21.
  • 206
    Kobe C, Dietlein M, Franklin J, et al. Positron emission tomography has a high negative predictive value for progression or early relapse for patients with residual disease after first-line chemotherapy in advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2008; 112: 3989-3994.
  • 207
    Schaefer NG, Taverna C, Strobel K, Wastl C, Kurrer M, Hany TF. Hodgkin disease: diagnostic value of FDG PET/CT after first-line therapy–is biopsy of FDG-avid lesions still needed? Radiology. 2007; 244: 257-262.
  • 208
    Barnes JA, LaCasce AS, Zukotynski K, et al. End-of-treatment but not interim PET scan predicts outcome in nonbulky limited-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2011; 22: 910-915.
  • 209
    Friedberg JW, Fischman A, Neuberg D, et al. FDG-PET is superior to gallium scintigraphy in staging and more sensitive in the follow-up of patients with de novo Hodgkin lymphoma: a blinded comparison. Leuk Lymphoma. 2004; 45: 85-92.
  • 210
    Han HS, Escalon MP, Hsiao B, Serafini A, Lossos IS. High incidence of false-positive PET scans in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphoma treated with rituximab-containing regimens. Ann Oncol. 2009; 20: 309-318.
  • 211
    Moskowitz CH, Schoder H, Teruya-Feldstein J, et al. Risk-adapted dose-dense immunochemotherapy determined by interim FDG-PET in Advanced-stage diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 1896-1903.
  • 212
    Cashen AF, Dehdashti F, Luo J, Homb A, Siegel BA, Bartlett NL. 18F-FDG PET/CT for early response assessment in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: poor predictive value of international harmonization project interpretation. J Nucl Med. 2011; 52: 386-392.
  • 213
    Terasawa T, Lau J, Bardet S, et al. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography for interim response assessment of advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 1906-1914.
  • 214
    Gallamini A, Hutchings M, Rigacci L, et al. Early interim 2-[18F]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography is prognostically superior to international prognostic score in advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: a report from a joint Italian-Danish study. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 3746-3752.
  • 215
    Cerci JJ, Pracchia LF, Linardi CC, et al. 18F-FDG PET after 2 cycles of ABVD predicts event-free survival in early and advanced Hodgkin lymphoma. J Nucl Med. 2010; 51: 1337-1343.
  • 216
    Itti E, Lin C, Dupuis J, et al. Prognostic value of interim 18F-FDG PET in patients with diffuse large B-Cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment at 4 cycles of chemotherapy. J Nucl Med. 2009; 50: 527-533.
  • 217
    Lin C, Itti E, Haioun C, et al. Early 18F-FDG PET for prediction of prognosis in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: SUV-based assessment versus visual analysis. J Nucl Med. 2007; 48: 1626-1632.
  • 218
    Safar V, Dupuis J, Itti E, et al. Interim [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with anthracycline-based chemotherapy plus rituximab. J Clin Oncol. 2012; 30: 184-190.
  • 219
    Casasnovas RO, Meignan M, Berriolo-Riedinger A, et al; Groupe d'étude des lymphomes de l'adulte (GELA). SUVmax reduction improves early prognosis value of interim positron emission tomography scans in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Blood. 2011; 118: 37-43.
  • 220
    Engert A, Diehl V, Franklin J, et al. Escalated-dose BEACOPP in the treatment of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma: 10 years of follow-up of the GHSG HD9 study. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 4548-4554.
  • 221
    Avigdor A, Bulvik S, Levi I, et al. Two cycles of escalated BEACOPP followed by four cycles of ABVD utilizing early-interim PET/CT scan is an effective regimen for advanced high-risk Hodgkin's lymphoma. Ann Oncol. 2010; 21: 126-132.
  • 222
    Dickinson M, Hoyt R, Roberts AW, et al. Improved survival for relapsed diffuse large B cell lymphoma is predicted by a negative pre-transplant FDG-PET scan following salvage chemotherapy. Br J Haematol. 2010; 150: 39-45.
  • 223
    Mocikova H, Pytlik R, Markova J, et al. Pre-transplant positron emission tomography in patients with relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2011; 52: 1668-1674.
  • 224
    Moskowitz CH, Matasar MJ, Zelenetz AD, et al. Normalization of pre-ASCT, FDG-PET imaging with second-line, non-cross resistant, chemotherapy programs improves event-free survival in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood. 2012; 119: 1665-1670.
  • 225
    Spaepen K, Stroobants S, Dupont P, et al. Prognostic value of pretransplantation positron emission tomography using fluorine 18-fluorodeoxyglucose in patients with aggressive lymphoma treated with high-dose chemotherapy and stem cell transplantation. Blood. 2003; 102: 53-59.
  • 226
    Terasawa T, Dahabreh IJ, Nihashi T. Fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in response assessment before high-dose chemotherapy for lymphoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncologist. 2010; 15: 750-759.
  • 227
    Jerusalem G, Beguin Y, Fassotte MF, et al. Early detection of relapse by whole-body positron emission tomography in the follow-up of patients with Hodgkin's disease. Ann Oncol. 2003; 14: 123-130.
  • 228
    Zinzani PL, Stefoni V, Tani M, et al. Role of [18F]fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography scan in the follow-up of lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2009; 27: 1781-1787.
  • 229
    Lee AI, Zuckerman DS, Van den Abbeele AD, et al. Surveillance imaging of Hodgkin lymphoma patients in first remission: a clinical and economic analysis. Cancer. 2010; 116: 3835-3842.
  • 230
    Mocikova H, Obrtlikova P, Vackova B, Trneny M. Positron emission tomography at the end of first-line therapy and during follow-up in patients with Hodgkin lymphoma: a retrospective study. Ann Oncol. 2010; 21: 1222-1227.
  • 231
    Hartridge-Lambert S, Schoder H, Lim R, Maragulia J, Portlock C. Six cycles of ABVD and a negative PET scan negates the need for radiologic follow-up in early stage, non-bulky Hodgkin lymphoma: MSKCC retrospective analysis [Abstract]. Blood. 2011; 118: Abstract 3139.
  • 232
    Abel GA, Vanderplas A, Rodriguez MA, et al. High rates of surveillance imaging for treated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: findings from a large national database. Leuk Lymphoma. 2012; 53: 1113-1116.
  • 233
    Liedtke M, Hamlin PA, Moskowitz CH, Zelenetz AD. Surveillance imaging during remission identifies a group of patients with more favorable aggressive NHL at time of relapse: a retrospective analysis of a uniformly-treated patient population. Ann Oncol. 2006; 17: 909-913.
  • 234
    Herrmann K, Buck AK, Schuster T, et al. Predictive value of initial 18F-FLT uptake in patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving R-CHOP treatment. J Nucl Med. 2011; 52: 690-696.
  • 235
    De Paepe K, Bevernage C, De Keyzer F, et al. 6. 3 Tesla whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging (WB-DWI) for early treatment assessment and treatment prediction in lymphoma. Cancer Imaging. 2011; 11: S178-S179.
  • 236
    Gu J, Chan T, Zhang J, Leung AY, Kwong YL, Khong PL. Whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging: the added value to whole-body MRI at initial diagnosis of lymphoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197: W384-W391.
  • 237
    van Ufford HM, Kwee TC, Beek FJ, et al. Newly diagnosed lymphoma: initial results with whole-body T1-weighted, STIR, and diffusion-weighted MRI compared with 18F-FDG PET/CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 196: 662-669.